Journal Editors Criticize EPA Transparency Rule

In a joint statement, the editors of six major scientific journals have expressed concerns about the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rule “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science,” which would bar the use of scientific studies in crafting regulations unless the underlying data “are publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation.” In the statement released on November 26, 2019, the editors of Science, Nature, PLOS, Cell Press, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and The Lancet wrote: “We urge the EPA to continue to adopt an approach that ensures the data used in decision-making are the best available, which will at times require consideration of peer-reviewed scientific data, not all of which may be open to all members of the public. The most relevant science, vetted through peer review, should inform public policy. Anything less will harm decision-making that claims to protect our health.” The editors had previously issued a similar statement in April 2018 when the rule was first proposed. They warned that the proposed rule could become “a mechanism for suppressing the use of relevant scientific evidence in policy-making, including public health regulations.” The statement is a response to recent reports that the EPA is preparing to propose a supplemental addition to the proposed rule that would widen the scope of the original proposal by requiring scien...
Source: Public Policy Reports - Category: Biology Authors: Source Type: news